ArticleBMC bioinformatics2011
Learning genetic epistasis using Bayesian network scoring criteria.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
30 citing papers in PubMed.
- A causal learning framework for the analysis and interpretation of COVID-19 clinical data.PloS one · 2022Review
- Automated Cyber and Privacy Risk Management Toolkit.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- The Application of Artificial Intelligence in the Genetic Study of Alzheimer's Disease.Aging and disease · 2020Review
- Epi-GTBN: an approach of epistasis mining based on genetic Tabu algorithm and Bayesian network.BMC bioinformatics · 2019Article
- Self-Adjusting Ant Colony Optimization Based on Information Entropy for Detecting Epistatic Interactions.Genes · 2019Article
- Heterogeneity Analysis and Diagnosis of Complex Diseases Based on Deep Learning Method.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- epiACO - a method for identifying epistasis based on ant Colony optimization algorithm.BioData mining · 2017Article
- Discovering causal interactions using Bayesian network scoring and information gain.BMC bioinformatics · 2016Article
- Computational methods for ubiquitination site prediction using physicochemical properties of protein sequences.BMC bioinformatics · 2016Article
- FHSA-SED: Two-Locus Model Detection for Genome-Wide Association Study with Harmony Search Algorithm.PloS one · 2016Article
- Evaluation of a two-stage framework for prediction using big genomic data.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2015Article
- The metabolomics of asthma control: a promising link between genetics and disease.Immunity, inflammation and disease · 2015Article
- LEAP: biomarker inference through learning and evaluating association patterns.Genetic epidemiology · 2015Article
- Learning Predictive Interactions Using Information Gain and Bayesian Network Scoring.PloS one · 2015Article
- Bayesian neural networks for detecting epistasis in genetic association studies.BMC bioinformatics · 2014Article
- A comparative analysis of methods for predicting clinical outcomes using high-dimensional genomic datasets.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2014Article
- A novel artificial neural network method for biomedical prediction based on matrix pseudo-inversion.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2014Article
- Identifying genetic interactions associated with late-onset Alzheimer's disease.BioData mining · 2014Article
- Inferring Aberrant Signal Transduction Pathways in Ovarian Cancer from TCGA Data.Cancer informatics · 2014Review
- Modeling the altered expression levels of genes on signaling pathways in tumors as causal bayesian networks.Cancer informatics · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGene-gene epistatic interactions likely play an important role in the genetic basis of many common diseases. Recently, machine-learning and data mining methods have been developed for learning epistatic relationships from data. A well-known combinatorial method that has been successfully applied for detecting epistasis is Multifactor Dimensionality Reduction (MDR). Jiang et al. created a combinatorial epistasis learning method called BNMBL to learn Bayesian network (BN) epistatic models. They compared BNMBL to MDR using simulated data sets. Each of these data sets was generated from a model that associates two SNPs with a disease and includes 18 unrelated SNPs. For each data set, BNMBL and MDR were used to score all 2-SNP models, and BNMBL learned significantly more correct models. In real data sets, we ordinarily do not know the number of SNPs that influence phenotype. BNMBL may not perform as well if we also scored models containing more than two SNPs. Furthermore, a number of other BN scoring criteria have been developed. They may detect epistatic interactions even better than BNMBL.Although BNs are a promising tool for learning epistatic relationships from data, we cannot confidently use them in this domain until we determine which scoring criteria work best or even well when we try learning the correct model without knowledge of the number of SNPs in that model.
resultsWe evaluated the performance of 22 BN scoring criteria using 28,000 simulated data sets and a real Alzheimer's GWAS data set. Our results were surprising in that the Bayesian scoring criterion with large values of a hyperparameter called α performed best. This score performed better than other BN scoring criteria and MDR at recall using simulated data sets, at detecting the hardest-to-detect models using simulated data sets, and at substantiating previous results using the real Alzheimer's data set.
conclusionsWe conclude that representing epistatic interactions using BN models and scoring them using a BN scoring criterion holds promise for identifying epistatic genetic variants in data. In particular, the Bayesian scoring criterion with large values of a hyperparameter α appears more promising than a number of alternatives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.